I really enjoyed the philosophical perspectives provided by Jonassen and Cronje in this week's readings. Jonassen provided definitions of both objectivism ("there is an objective reality that we as learners assimilate" [10]) and constructivism ("reality is more in the mind of the knower" [10]) that helped illustrate the primary difference between the two philosophies: the origin of reality on an individual level. Both articles address different ways in which objectivism and constructivism can be brought closer to each other to improve instructional design. Cronje takes this one step further and proposes an integration of the two philosophies into a system of quadrants and outright opposes the idea of a continuum with a philosophy at each end.
Cronje conducts multiple tests of the quadrant model including a pilot study, a mailing list discussion and two case studies. All of these tests indicated that both objectivism and constructivism were most often integrated together rather than treated as opposites. Of the four quadrants identified in model (construction, integration, immersion, and injection), integration of the two philosophies was the favored approach.
In contrast to Cronje's empirical appraoch, Jonassen provides a theoretical approach to the integration of objectivism and constructivism. Potential changes in practice with the integration of objectivism and constructivism include negotiable instructional goals and objectives, less focus on a "single, best sequence for learning," promoting knowledge construction, and evaluation as self-analysis (11-12). Ultimately, he concludes that instructional systems technology is a blend of the two philosophies and the "most realistic model of learning lies somewhere on the continuum between these positions" (13).
Both articles provide helpful tables comparing objectivism and constructivism. Cronje also included a table on pedagogical dimensions (391) and a table reflecting a shift in governmental focus on education (392). Based on these articles, I am interested in assessing where instructional systems technology is currently (5 years after the Cronje article) and if and to what extent constructivism has been integrated into instructional design.
Discussion Questions: Which of Cronje's quadrants is most like the integration of constructivism and objectivism proposed by Jonassen? Has instructional design progressed to a point where an integrated objectivist/constructivist approach is more widely used/accepted?
Week 2 Reflection
The articles for this week by Chaika and Anderson focused on suggestions and strategies for teachers to utilize in their one-computer classroom. Both articles suggested the use of stations (where the computer is one of many resources available to students), large moniros or projectors, borrowing or trading computer resources with other teachers, and either printing and making copies of information, or having students print information to read away from the computer.
All of these suggestions have advantages and disadvantages. However, neither author really addresses disadvantages outside of image distortion (with a projector) or perhaps printing a few unneeded pages here and there (with students printing information). What struck me in particular was the assumption that paper, toner, and printers in general are widely available. Sure, they are often much cheaper than acquiring additional computers for classroom use, but the K-12 education literature is full of stories of inadequate resources available to teachers, paper included. It is therefore curious how both authors were able to treat this as a minor issue; perhaps to them, in comparison to a lack of computer resources, it is.
Anderson also suggested that, as a time-saving method, students were familiar with search engines (even just one specific search engine) and appropriate computer programs. This would reduce the time spent at the computer. While I disagree with only familiarizing students with one search engine - there are different search engines for different topics that could be appropriate for classroom use - I am inclined to agree that reducing the learning curve to maximize productivity is a good idea. Perhaps an overview at the beginning of the school year to ensure student familiarity would help achieve this goal.
My own teaching experience has been at the college level. Most classrooms (electronic classrooms notwithstanding) only have one computer for instructor use, but I have never hesitated to require assignments that require computer usage. Website-specific homework, research, discussion boards, and typed homework have been the norm in my classes. I am aware that I am not the only secondary instructor that bases most, if not all, assignments on technology. The resources of college students are often different than those of K-12 students. For one, there are multiple computer labs and libraries available on campus that are free for student use. Within these computer labs and libraries, printers are available, and each student begins every quarter with a certain number of prints available to them. Additionally, college students often have increased mobility, meaning that they can access public libraries to use computer resources if they prefer.
I think the challenge for higher ed teachers is more about how to use that one computer effectively. Most tend to lecture and show PowerPoints with it. I am hoping by the end of this class that everyone will come away with more creative uses for it. - JZ
Discussion Questions: What are your technology restrictions? How have you adapted to overcome restrictions on technology? Do restrictions on other resources (ie., paper, library contents) impact technology use?
Week 4 Reflection
I'm not sure why, but I did not expect there to be so much confusion around fair use and copyrighted materials. In retrospect, however, I can honestly say that I was not familiar with the intricacies (or even much beyond the broad general concepts) of fair use. In their study, Hobbs et al found that, even though teachers did not fully understand fair use, they still used copyrighted materials. They also provided "coping mechanisms" that teachers use when they want to use copyrighted materials in their classes, including "see no evil," "close the door," and "hyper comply" (14-15). "The Code of Best Practices" provides just that - a code that teachers can use as a guide when they want to utilize copyrighted materials in their classrooms.
I really found the Principles of Best Practices with respect to fair use to be very clearly explained. With the issue identified, the principle derived from the issue, and the limitations of use, most (if not all) questions about using copyrighted materials in the classroom can be answered. Based on the findings in Hobbs et al's study, I believe it's fair to say that this information is not well-distributed amongst teachers. My question is, why not? Hobbs et al identify pedagogical costs that are a result of nonuse or misuse of copyrighted materials in the classroom. Making the principles available to all teachers - perhaps as a part of a professional development session or even as an email or a handout - could provide teachers with more effective teaching materials.
In my own classroom, I've never really struggled with the use of copyrighted materials. Often there is a book assigned (which students have to buy) and then accompanying online resources. Rather than distribute the materials myself, I refer students to them for their own use. However, from a different perspective, I suppose it could be said that I was indeed utilizing fair use by using the online resources as part of my course materials. There are so many resources, online and otherwise, that can be used to enhance the classroom experience that I can't see why teachers wouldn't take advantage of them.
Discussion questions: Do you use copyrighted materials in your class? What is your understanding of fair use? Will you be educating your fellow teachers after reading these articles?
Week 5 Reflection
This week's readings were right up my alley, so to speak, with a focus on blogs, digital literacy and web 2.0. Rosen and Nelson provided a great overview of web 2.0, including characteristics of web 2.0 tools (user-initiated publishing of information, social networking, and the sharing of information) and the emphasis that web 2.0 puts on collaboration amongst individuals (213). Ipkeze and Boyd take web 2.0 a step further and discuss "Web Quests," which provide teachers with the opportunity to bridge the gap between technology and literacy in the classroom. They also emphasize that teachers "need to incorporate learning that is meaningful to the learner," which is one of the primary focuses of adult learning theory (652). Wang and Husa take web 2.0 and learning technology one step further with the study of blogs as a method of expanding in-class discussion. They found that while students were more likely to make comments on their blogs versus in the classroom, there were motivational issues related to the "extra burden" of blogging outside of class (84). They also recommend that instructors provide some training for students to minimize this burden, and perhaps consider the public-ness of blogs versus a more secure discussion board.
I really feel as though teachers can benefit from the collaborative effort that is web 2.0. The current generation of students are very capable when it comes to web 2.0 tools; however, many teachers are from the web 1.0 generation, which puts them at a slight disadvantage with web 2.0 capabilities. I believe that the biggest hurdle for teachers in incorporating web 2.0 tools is relinquishing some of their control (ie, "I am the teacher, this is my classroom, I know everything) and working alongside their students with the realization that their students may be more knowledgeable in some/many aspects of web 2.0. I think that once teachers realize how beneficial web tools can be, they will start to incorporate them more into their lessons (resources permitting).
As a student, I'm not fond of discussion board requirements, especially in a class that meets regularly - I often find it to be superfluous, and an "extra burden," in the words of Wang and Husa. More often than not, responses to discussion board prompts are similar from all students - a means to answer the poised question and not much more. However, I do like the idea of the reflective blog. It is a great combination of web 2.0 tools and provides a little more satisfaction than a run-of-the-mill Blackboard discussion board. I think, in future classes, I would be inclined to use a blog rather than a discussion board to facilitate reflection on topics that are not discussed in class.
Discussion questions: How do you use technology in your classroom? Do your resources allow for an increased use of technology? Are you willing to relinquish some of your control as a teacher to incorporate web 2.0 tools in the classroom?
Week 8 Reflection
The articles for this week (Banister, 2010; Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, and Thompson, 2005) examine the potential uses of different types of technology in the classroom. Banister discussed several ways that the iPod Touch can be used as a classroom tool, including both "out of the box" uses and more elaborate web applications (p. 125). Armstrong et al. examined how teachers integrated interactive whiteboard (IWB) technology into their classrooms.
Armstrong et al. (2005) stated that while the IWB was intended to be a student-centered tool for classroom use, it could also act as a "presentation tool" for teachers that did not take advantage of the features offered by the IWB (p. 456). To me, this is illustrative of the concept that just because a tool is intended for a particular use does not mean that it will be used in a particular way; if teachers are not willing to make their classroom more student-centered, the IWB is not enough to facilitate that change.
One thing that is not discussed in either article is the issue of access to technology beyond stating that Sarah's "school had made significant financial investment in this new technology" (Armstrong et al., 2005, p. 459). In fact, Banister (2010) made a half-hearted effort to address caveats to using iPod Touches in the classroom at the end of the article, neither of which was not an issue with access to technology. We have spent much of this quarter discussing issue of access to technology in the classroom, particularly given the current economic situation. I was surprised that Banister did not mention this potential issue at all.
At the end of their case study, Armstrong et al. (2005) found that simply providing teachers with a piece of technology is not enough - teachers must be trained and provided with ongoing support in order to effectively use the technology in their classrooms. Training and support were potential caveats that were not addressed by Banister (2005). While many may find the iPod Touch a fairly intuitive piece of technology, training is important to allow teachers to explore all facets of the technology.
I have not had a lot of experience teaching where individual technologies (such as iPod Touches) or IWBs were present in the classroom. However, I think that, based on my experience at the college level, some of these tools are geared toward younger students (as illustrated with Banister's [2010] K-12 focus). College students have an increased access to computers to do research; an iPod Touch is a convenient tool to use in the classroom, but the small screen and limited peripherals make it difficult to do much more than Banister suggests in the article. As a student, I find the IWB an interesting classroom tool. I look forward to being able to use it in a classroom someday.
Discussion Questions: What technologies would you like to use in your classroom? What keeps you from using these technologies? If you've used individual learning technologies in your classroom, what are some classroom management strategies that you've put into place? How important is the use of technology in your classroom?
Week 1 Reflection
I really enjoyed the philosophical perspectives provided by Jonassen and Cronje in this week's readings. Jonassen provided definitions of both objectivism ("there is an objective reality that we as learners assimilate" [10]) and constructivism ("reality is more in the mind of the knower" [10]) that helped illustrate the primary difference between the two philosophies: the origin of reality on an individual level. Both articles address different ways in which objectivism and constructivism can be brought closer to each other to improve instructional design. Cronje takes this one step further and proposes an integration of the two philosophies into a system of quadrants and outright opposes the idea of a continuum with a philosophy at each end.
Cronje conducts multiple tests of the quadrant model including a pilot study, a mailing list discussion and two case studies. All of these tests indicated that both objectivism and constructivism were most often integrated together rather than treated as opposites. Of the four quadrants identified in model (construction, integration, immersion, and injection), integration of the two philosophies was the favored approach.
In contrast to Cronje's empirical appraoch, Jonassen provides a theoretical approach to the integration of objectivism and constructivism. Potential changes in practice with the integration of objectivism and constructivism include negotiable instructional goals and objectives, less focus on a "single, best sequence for learning," promoting knowledge construction, and evaluation as self-analysis (11-12). Ultimately, he concludes that instructional systems technology is a blend of the two philosophies and the "most realistic model of learning lies somewhere on the continuum between these positions" (13).
Both articles provide helpful tables comparing objectivism and constructivism. Cronje also included a table on pedagogical dimensions (391) and a table reflecting a shift in governmental focus on education (392). Based on these articles, I am interested in assessing where instructional systems technology is currently (5 years after the Cronje article) and if and to what extent constructivism has been integrated into instructional design.
Discussion Questions: Which of Cronje's quadrants is most like the integration of constructivism and objectivism proposed by Jonassen? Has instructional design progressed to a point where an integrated objectivist/constructivist approach is more widely used/accepted?
Week 2 Reflection
The articles for this week by Chaika and Anderson focused on suggestions and strategies for teachers to utilize in their one-computer classroom. Both articles suggested the use of stations (where the computer is one of many resources available to students), large moniros or projectors, borrowing or trading computer resources with other teachers, and either printing and making copies of information, or having students print information to read away from the computer.
All of these suggestions have advantages and disadvantages. However, neither author really addresses disadvantages outside of image distortion (with a projector) or perhaps printing a few unneeded pages here and there (with students printing information). What struck me in particular was the assumption that paper, toner, and printers in general are widely available. Sure, they are often much cheaper than acquiring additional computers for classroom use, but the K-12 education literature is full of stories of inadequate resources available to teachers, paper included. It is therefore curious how both authors were able to treat this as a minor issue; perhaps to them, in comparison to a lack of computer resources, it is.
Anderson also suggested that, as a time-saving method, students were familiar with search engines (even just one specific search engine) and appropriate computer programs. This would reduce the time spent at the computer. While I disagree with only familiarizing students with one search engine - there are different search engines for different topics that could be appropriate for classroom use - I am inclined to agree that reducing the learning curve to maximize productivity is a good idea. Perhaps an overview at the beginning of the school year to ensure student familiarity would help achieve this goal.
My own teaching experience has been at the college level. Most classrooms (electronic classrooms notwithstanding) only have one computer for instructor use, but I have never hesitated to require assignments that require computer usage. Website-specific homework, research, discussion boards, and typed homework have been the norm in my classes. I am aware that I am not the only secondary instructor that bases most, if not all, assignments on technology. The resources of college students are often different than those of K-12 students. For one, there are multiple computer labs and libraries available on campus that are free for student use. Within these computer labs and libraries, printers are available, and each student begins every quarter with a certain number of prints available to them. Additionally, college students often have increased mobility, meaning that they can access public libraries to use computer resources if they prefer.
I think the challenge for higher ed teachers is more about how to use that one computer effectively. Most tend to lecture and show PowerPoints with it. I am hoping by the end of this class that everyone will come away with more creative uses for it. - JZ
Discussion Questions: What are your technology restrictions? How have you adapted to overcome restrictions on technology? Do restrictions on other resources (ie., paper, library contents) impact technology use?
Week 4 Reflection
I'm not sure why, but I did not expect there to be so much confusion around fair use and copyrighted materials. In retrospect, however, I can honestly say that I was not familiar with the intricacies (or even much beyond the broad general concepts) of fair use. In their study, Hobbs et al found that, even though teachers did not fully understand fair use, they still used copyrighted materials. They also provided "coping mechanisms" that teachers use when they want to use copyrighted materials in their classes, including "see no evil," "close the door," and "hyper comply" (14-15). "The Code of Best Practices" provides just that - a code that teachers can use as a guide when they want to utilize copyrighted materials in their classrooms.
I really found the Principles of Best Practices with respect to fair use to be very clearly explained. With the issue identified, the principle derived from the issue, and the limitations of use, most (if not all) questions about using copyrighted materials in the classroom can be answered. Based on the findings in Hobbs et al's study, I believe it's fair to say that this information is not well-distributed amongst teachers. My question is, why not? Hobbs et al identify pedagogical costs that are a result of nonuse or misuse of copyrighted materials in the classroom. Making the principles available to all teachers - perhaps as a part of a professional development session or even as an email or a handout - could provide teachers with more effective teaching materials.
In my own classroom, I've never really struggled with the use of copyrighted materials. Often there is a book assigned (which students have to buy) and then accompanying online resources. Rather than distribute the materials myself, I refer students to them for their own use. However, from a different perspective, I suppose it could be said that I was indeed utilizing fair use by using the online resources as part of my course materials. There are so many resources, online and otherwise, that can be used to enhance the classroom experience that I can't see why teachers wouldn't take advantage of them.
Discussion questions: Do you use copyrighted materials in your class? What is your understanding of fair use? Will you be educating your fellow teachers after reading these articles?
Week 5 Reflection
This week's readings were right up my alley, so to speak, with a focus on blogs, digital literacy and web 2.0. Rosen and Nelson provided a great overview of web 2.0, including characteristics of web 2.0 tools (user-initiated publishing of information, social networking, and the sharing of information) and the emphasis that web 2.0 puts on collaboration amongst individuals (213). Ipkeze and Boyd take web 2.0 a step further and discuss "Web Quests," which provide teachers with the opportunity to bridge the gap between technology and literacy in the classroom. They also emphasize that teachers "need to incorporate learning that is meaningful to the learner," which is one of the primary focuses of adult learning theory (652). Wang and Husa take web 2.0 and learning technology one step further with the study of blogs as a method of expanding in-class discussion. They found that while students were more likely to make comments on their blogs versus in the classroom, there were motivational issues related to the "extra burden" of blogging outside of class (84). They also recommend that instructors provide some training for students to minimize this burden, and perhaps consider the public-ness of blogs versus a more secure discussion board.
I really feel as though teachers can benefit from the collaborative effort that is web 2.0. The current generation of students are very capable when it comes to web 2.0 tools; however, many teachers are from the web 1.0 generation, which puts them at a slight disadvantage with web 2.0 capabilities. I believe that the biggest hurdle for teachers in incorporating web 2.0 tools is relinquishing some of their control (ie, "I am the teacher, this is my classroom, I know everything) and working alongside their students with the realization that their students may be more knowledgeable in some/many aspects of web 2.0. I think that once teachers realize how beneficial web tools can be, they will start to incorporate them more into their lessons (resources permitting).
As a student, I'm not fond of discussion board requirements, especially in a class that meets regularly - I often find it to be superfluous, and an "extra burden," in the words of Wang and Husa. More often than not, responses to discussion board prompts are similar from all students - a means to answer the poised question and not much more. However, I do like the idea of the reflective blog. It is a great combination of web 2.0 tools and provides a little more satisfaction than a run-of-the-mill Blackboard discussion board. I think, in future classes, I would be inclined to use a blog rather than a discussion board to facilitate reflection on topics that are not discussed in class.
Discussion questions: How do you use technology in your classroom? Do your resources allow for an increased use of technology? Are you willing to relinquish some of your control as a teacher to incorporate web 2.0 tools in the classroom?
Week 8 Reflection
The articles for this week (Banister, 2010; Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, and Thompson, 2005) examine the potential uses of different types of technology in the classroom. Banister discussed several ways that the iPod Touch can be used as a classroom tool, including both "out of the box" uses and more elaborate web applications (p. 125). Armstrong et al. examined how teachers integrated interactive whiteboard (IWB) technology into their classrooms.
Armstrong et al. (2005) stated that while the IWB was intended to be a student-centered tool for classroom use, it could also act as a "presentation tool" for teachers that did not take advantage of the features offered by the IWB (p. 456). To me, this is illustrative of the concept that just because a tool is intended for a particular use does not mean that it will be used in a particular way; if teachers are not willing to make their classroom more student-centered, the IWB is not enough to facilitate that change.
One thing that is not discussed in either article is the issue of access to technology beyond stating that Sarah's "school had made significant financial investment in this new technology" (Armstrong et al., 2005, p. 459). In fact, Banister (2010) made a half-hearted effort to address caveats to using iPod Touches in the classroom at the end of the article, neither of which was not an issue with access to technology. We have spent much of this quarter discussing issue of access to technology in the classroom, particularly given the current economic situation. I was surprised that Banister did not mention this potential issue at all.
At the end of their case study, Armstrong et al. (2005) found that simply providing teachers with a piece of technology is not enough - teachers must be trained and provided with ongoing support in order to effectively use the technology in their classrooms. Training and support were potential caveats that were not addressed by Banister (2005). While many may find the iPod Touch a fairly intuitive piece of technology, training is important to allow teachers to explore all facets of the technology.
I have not had a lot of experience teaching where individual technologies (such as iPod Touches) or IWBs were present in the classroom. However, I think that, based on my experience at the college level, some of these tools are geared toward younger students (as illustrated with Banister's [2010] K-12 focus). College students have an increased access to computers to do research; an iPod Touch is a convenient tool to use in the classroom, but the small screen and limited peripherals make it difficult to do much more than Banister suggests in the article. As a student, I find the IWB an interesting classroom tool. I look forward to being able to use it in a classroom someday.
Discussion Questions: What technologies would you like to use in your classroom? What keeps you from using these technologies? If you've used individual learning technologies in your classroom, what are some classroom management strategies that you've put into place? How important is the use of technology in your classroom?